Ghost vs Microweber
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted content management systems options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Ghost
Professional publishing platform for blogs and newsletters
VS
Microweber
Drag-and-drop CMS with built-in online store
| Feature | Ghost | Microweber |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | HTML |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 54,707 | ★ 3,430 |
| First released | 2013 | 2013 |
| Replaces | WordPress, Substack, Medium | WordPress, Wix |
Why pick each one
Choose Ghost if…
- Excellent for newsletters and memberships
- Clean, fast publishing experience
Choose Microweber if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (3.4k GitHub stars)
- Written in HTML
Frequently asked questions
Is Ghost or Microweber better?
Neither is universally better. Ghost has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Ghost and Microweber free and open-source?
Yes. Ghost is licensed under MIT and Microweber under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Ghost and Microweber with Docker?
Ghost: yes. Microweber: yes.